Executive Engineer Construction Etawah Versus DCIT, (TDS) , Agra

2018 (3) TMI 577 - ITAT AGRA

Assessee in default for not making timely TDS and on the rates prescribed - Demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Held that:- As per section 202 of the Act, deduction of tax at source is only one mode of recovery. In the present case, as observed by the ld. CIT(A) herself, due taxes, including interest, have been, in fact, recovered. The fault in deduction stands rectified and also accepted by the Department, in as much as the outstanding demand now amounts to a total of ₹ 2,460/-. The rest of t .....

all just exceptions, must examine and evaluate events and developments, if any occurring subsequent to the institution of the proceedings, and mould the relief accordingly. In the present case, clearly, this has not been done. Though the ld. CIT(A) has noted the assessee having, post the passing of the AO’s order, furnished the quarterly statements and paid requisite taxes, in spite thereof, the assessee has been held not absolved of being treated as an assessee in default. - Decided in favour .....

d on the rates prescribed and thereby confirming the demand of ₹ 4,17,508/- raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 2. The facts are that the assessee is a deductor, i.e., the U.P. Government Construction Division. Survey proceedings were conducted on 16.12.2013 in order to verify the correct applicability of the TDS provisions. It was observed by the AO that the assessee had failed to deduct and deposit TDS u/s 194C of the Act on an amount of ₹ 3,27,460/- during th .....

reating the contractors as having PAN, and hence at a rate of 2.25%, whereas AO held that as PAN for these contractors were not available, assessee should have deducted TDS at the rate of 20%. Assessee has also not filed its quarterly statements of 24Q and 26Q, hence it has rendered itself liable to be treated as assessee in default under section 201 (1). Although assessee later furnished the quarterly statements and requisite taxes were also paid, but that would not absolve the assessee from be .....

not been filing quarterly statements in 24Q and 26Q for the year. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that the short deduction was worked out due to mismatch of PANs and not due to absence of PANs; that the short deduction was worked out by the AO at 20% of the total amount of ₹ 18,44,957/-, which came to ₹ 3,68,991/-, while the assessee had charged TDS @ 2.25%, worth ₹ 41,541/-; that the AO had treated the contractors as having no PANs and had worked out the short de .....

not available, the assessee should have made TDS @ 20% and that since the assessee also had not filed its quarterly statements in 24Q and 26Q, it had rendered itself liable to be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with the stand of the AO. 7. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The order under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 28.03.2014, treating the contractors as having no PANs and working out short TDS .....

y statements and requisite taxes were also paid, but that would not absolve the assessee from being treated as assessee in default. 8. The question is whether the ld. CIT(A) is correct. As admitted by the ld. CIT(A) herself, the assessee, after passing of the order dated 28.03.2014, had furnished quarterly statements and due taxes stand paid. If it is so, is the assessee entitled to be absolved of being treated as an assessee in default? The Department says that subsequent events cannot be taken .....